[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Home]
4chanarchives logo
/gear/ - Gear Thread
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.

You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography

Thread replies: 255
Thread images: 37
File: ZURSILVERBODY-2.jpg (116 KB, 1024x770) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ZURSILVERBODY-2.jpg
116 KB, 1024x770
If you have questions about a new camera, what lenses to buy and anything related to gear or wondering about getting into photography, post it in this thread.

Do not attempt to make a new thread for your new Rabal, broken glass and being new.
No pointless (brand) arguments and dickwaving allowed! You have been warned!

I repeat, ANYTHING GEAR RELATED goes in here!

And don't forget, be polite!

Previous thread: >>2874276
>>
>>2876408
A Diana Mini for $35?
I always wanted to try a square format cam but the normal Diana that uses 120 film seems a bit pricier and 120 film cost more.
>>
File: $_57.jpg (125 KB, 1600x1066) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
$_57.jpg
125 KB, 1600x1066
Beside the sony a7 line, what would be the best mirrorless camera? Their nex/non FF alphas?
Is it worth to get the a6000 instead of the nex-6?
>>
>>2876496
Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic
Why mirrorless only? I assume you are the same guy asking around for a few days now, if you are such a beginner why not save your money, get a used entry level DSLR with kit lens and abuse it for a year, then you will be able to decide what system to get into.
>>
>>2876496
>Is it worth to get the a6000 instead of the nex-6?

a6300 maybe, a6000 is only a minor difference.
>>
This has got to be a scam right? I mean everything seems so obvious (extremely low price for a new cam + lens, tiny pic off google, fuck all seller feedback etc.)

The only thing making me believe it's real is that why would people even bother trying to scam on ebay? Like it's so easy to get a full refund from paypal if you get fucked over.

>http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Nikon-D-D7000-16-2-MP-Digital-SLR-Camera-Black-Kit-w-VR-18-55mm-Lens-/252449764995?hash=item3ac72db683:m:mu5gZeh14Od3aJ85a4Gjmgg
>>
>>2876496
*sigh*
For what? What are your preferred subjects?
Portraits? Street? Landscape? Architecture? macro? Action sports? Motor sports? Wildlife? Journalism? Events? Low light?
Throw us a couple of clues so we can actually help you instead of barking out a brand or a generic good for nothing camera.
>>
>>2876526
>not_this_shit_again.NEF
>>
>>2876528
My bad, I guess this happens alot huh. So what's the deal anon, if you don't mind?
>>
>>2876496
faster focus.
higher megapickle.
slightly better high iso.
get nex 6 if it's way cheaper.
>>
>>2876532
>higher megapickle
ah, the goto boxstore comment to grab the mother
>>
Worth going after for $99? These are both SLR, right?

http://lexington.craigslist.org/for/5645184832.html
>>
>>2876563

Fuck yes.

Can't tell what exactly the lenses are. But the Minolta 50 f1.8 is worth around $100 alone.

Those lenses can all be used on a modern A-mount body or E-mount with the proper adapter.
>>
File: fd50mm-001.jpg (106 KB, 500x337) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
fd50mm-001.jpg
106 KB, 500x337
I'm still a huge newfag so there's going to be a lot of dumb questions.
A local seller (not online) is selling a Canon FD SSC 55mm f/1.2 for 200 euros (about $220). I know that's a good lens at a reasonable price - at least I think it is - but can I buy something this old with confidence? Of course I can test it as much I want beofre I buy it, but I'm worried about issues that may appear later.
Have you ever bought a lens this old? Would you advise a newfag to do it?
Also is there anything I should be looking for when searching for a glassless FD to EF mount adapter?
>>
File: Quenchiest.png (430 KB, 720x480) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Quenchiest.png
430 KB, 720x480
>>2876521
Isn't the a6000 like 600 bucks less than the a6300.
I never got why.
Or is it because the a6000 is older?

I never get the naming schemes of the companies. Panasonic just goes up in number with generations, that's simple, Canon adds a Mk. but the numbers and letters are all over the place, sony sometimes adds a roman numeral and sometimes not.
WTF?
Just stick with letters for the type of camera and numbers for the generation.

Also, what's a decent filter I need for videos? ND or Pol? And what's a good cheap source for them? they cost insanely much new.
>>
>>2876673
>>
>>2876675
You already bought it. Go out and learn how to exposure triangle and composition.
Use A mode for control of depth of field and S mode for controlling motion (freezing or blurring).
>>
>>2876680
I know the ropes, I'm simply curious what gearfags think about the profitability of my choice. I don't gearfag much.
>>
>>2876685
You don't gearfag much? Why are you so interested in what others think about your entry level body with kit lens on the internet?
Just go out and shoot.
>>
>>2876664
Think about it this way: if there were any issues, they'd have come up by now. Manual focus lenses are easy to buy because there's nothing on them to break.
>>
>>2876670
ND and polarizing filters are two fundamentally different things. NDs reduce the amount of light that reaches the sensor but don't affect color. Polarizers will affect color and that's why there used. Look up some side-to-side comparisons if you want to know more
But if you really want a filter "for video", then I guess you want the kind of filter that's built-in in newsgathering cams (that's all the experience I have in video). I'm fairly certain that's a ND filter, the 4-filter wheel on a P2 shoulder cam doesn't affect colors in any way

>>2876695
Thanks m8, I'll be sure to bring my checklist to test it
>>
>>2876698
I'm doing video with a DSLM.
I have heard people use ND filters to prevent blown out highlights and Pol filters for adjusting for reflective surfaces like glass and water and the sky to some degree
>>
hey guys, i need some advice on buying a new camera.

I would still consider myself a beginner photographer but I have ~5 years experience in playing around with composition, manual shooting and whatnot. Am a big poorfag and my only camera right now is a pentax km with a 50mm f1.8 lens. I wanted to get a dslr of some kind because as much as I love film the cost of getting it developed right now is hitting me hard. I'll probably start developing my own after college but it just wouldn't work for me right now. Would you have any recommendations for me? I would probably be looking for a workhorse that can shoot acceptably in a wide range of conditions and where lenses wouldn't break my bank. I'll definitely be getting an upgrade in gear after college but again, I'm itching for something I can go out and shoot with on an everyday basis.
>>
>>2876703
You must be right about this one
Now that I think about it, polarizing filters do seem to have an effect on light. I have used a few of them in astronomy to make a light-polluted sky a little better, and also to make the full moon less painful to watch. Sadly I didn't care about optics back then
>>
Hi guys, today I've compared two cameras, Panasonic G5 with 45-175pz lens, owned by me, and Canon 550D with 18-135 lens, owned by my gf.
In terms of IQ and higher ISO noise performance in stills, they seemed almost identical. I've always had an impression that her Canon should produce better results, especially in lowlight, high ISO scenarios, so my question is, is there no difference because 550D is 3 years older than G5? Is it the lenses?
Also, would modern DSLRs with aps-c sensors be a lot better than m4/3 cameras in terms of IQ and low light noise performance?
>>
>>2876513
>Why mirrorless only? I assume you are the same guy asking around for a few days now, if you are such a beginner why not save your money, get a used entry level DSLR with kit lens and abuse it for a year, then you will be able to decide what system to get into.

I am not, I'm already selling my crop dslr I just want to move to a more compact system if I can keep or even improve the image quality.

>>2876527
>For what? What are your preferred subjects?
I mostly just shoot my friends and my travels(landscapes/architecture), and some wanabie street photography/curious shit
>>
>>2876755
the 550d should still be better than a m43.
>>
I want to do a DIY project but I need a quick-release plate for it.
I was looking online and manfroto makes a lot of sets, but they are all very expensive, while some systems are very cheap at around 10-15€.
I would Ideally prefer one that can be sc ewed on at several points so it doesn't twist on the baseplate.
Any pointers?
Right now I'm using a Hähnel video tripod, so I thought it would be cool if I could just keep my current plate on the camera, but I can't find that system online.
>>
From last thread
>Tokina AT-X 12-28 F4 PRO Dx
>Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM ELD SLD Aspherical Super Wide Angle Lens

Looking for a wide angle lens for Nikon. Budget is ~$500. Those two are my top contenders so far, leaning towards the Tokina for less distortion on the wider end, zoom up to 28 for more versatility, and I heard it's a better build and more durable, haven't seen either in person yet.
>>
>>2876685
Seems like a pretty solid choice. Like anon said though, it's an entry level camera. You basically had two choices if you wanted to go Nikon, D3300 and whatever the D5x00 iteration is now. Now that you've picked one, just go out and shoot. Depending on what you want to shoot though, might want to also cop yourself a 35mm f/1.8. It was my first non-kit lens too, it's inexpensive (~$150), and the lower aperture gives you the bokeh and to take handheld photos in darker settings.
>>
X100S or GR if I want to get into photography in a very casual way and carry my camera around everywhere?

Not going to be taking portraits or doing weddings anytime soon (or ever).
>>
>>2876698
Fuck you're stupid.
>>
good camera for landscape and astrophotgraphy? maybe some sports. Total around 500 with a lens but can spend more on lenses afterwards
thanks
>>
File: ricoh-gr-ii-1.jpg (36 KB, 770x433) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ricoh-gr-ii-1.jpg
36 KB, 770x433
Want to buy a Ricoh GR2. what is your advice on this model and what flash combo can you sugest me ?
>>
>>2876949
X100 if you care about how the camera feels in your hand, I always found the GR to feel distressingly cheap and plasticky.
>>
>>2876963
The price was 620 about a week ago, and shot up to 700 everywhere it seems.

I'd wait for it to go back down if you're buying new.
>>
>>2876963
The built in flash is excellent, and you have all kinds of control over it, I just use that.
The only thing it doesn't do is face-melting power or strobing.
>>
>>2876986
any example ?
>>
100 complete newfag, want to get into filming things like concerts. What are some of the things i want to look at in regards to cameras
>>
Looking for a small shoulder bag to haul around a rangefinder/mirror less and 2+3 lenses as well as film. Budget is about $150 CDN.

I own a big domke bag but its my daily driver for my DSLR set up
>>
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM for $300. Should I /p/?
>>
>>2877035
Sony a6300 with a ultra-wide angle zoom lens, a shit ton of batteries and a press pass.

That last bit is the most important otherwise you won't be able to bring a camera in at all.
>>
Is there any reason at all to look into micro 3/4 cameras? I already have two DSLRs and an old point and shoot. I just find the smaller compact size to be a novelty. Have mirrorless cameras made micro 3/4 obsolete?
>>
>>2877112

m4/3 are the most mature and developed mirrorless mounts on the market today. The only thing they're (sort of) lacking is image quality, but the gap isn't as large as you might think.
>>
>>2877116
There's a law of diminishing returns between the same size sensors, but APS-C is a big step up from M43 and FF much more so.

Then there's the issue of field of view, then depth of field etc.

I personally do not find any reason to go M43 nowadays.
>>
>>2876731
Polarize filters do exactly that; polarizes light. Does prevent light coming from acite angles off reflective surfaces so you get more contrasty subjects. However does reduce the amount of light and therefore you will need to compensate with exposure.

I usually get about 1/3 stops of underexposure with my Hoya HD Pro Circular Polarizers.
>>
>>2877081
Yes.
>>
camera strap for x70? like the gordy look but would like something different
>>
File: 316346.png (142 KB, 359x363) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
316346.png
142 KB, 359x363
>spend years trawling thrift stores and peddler's malls for vidya, old keyboards, board games, and CRTs
>recently get into photography
>remembering all those old and awesome cameras I passed up

So many SLRs, TLRs, Rangefinders...

If I went today I know I'd find nothing. That's the way of the world.
>>
>>2877213
I feel you. I remember seeing a bigass white telescope that was at least 25 years old but looked great. Was $20. I just walked by it without thinking, I kick myself years later thinking about that fucking scope
>>
>>2877213
Old stuff mostly sucks anyway. People only like it for nostalgia.
New glass has all sorts of R&D put into it. Old glass and cameras are just sought after by meme kids.
>>
my Nikon D600 already have 85k clicks, should I sell and buy a new one or should I stick with it since?
>>
>>2877221
Why would you do something so stupid? Run it into the ground until the shutter fails, a shutter replacement would still cost less than selling and replacing, and you probably have at least 30-40k more before I would worry about it.
>>
>>2877221
>>2877224
I'll be surprised if the whole sensor wasn't all gunked up with dust and oil desu.
>>
good 35mm equivalent for nikon dx cameras?
>>
>>2877229
24/2.8D, kit lens, or crying yourself to sleep.
>>
>>2877221
The shutter has been rated for at least 150k releases. That's just the kind of 'warranty' Nikon is giving you to let you know that after passing the number mentioned it might be possible that the shutter will fail at some point - maybe.

There are lots of Semipro DSLRs with more than 300k shots and their shutters are still working just as fine.
I wouldn't worry about it this much, anon.
>>
>>2877112
They're clean up to ISO 1600, and usable up to ISO3200. You're loosing about a stop of DR and ISO to APS-C, and another stop to FF.

In return, you get an actually miniscule system.

Would I shoot m43 as my only system? Probably not. Would I get it for any situation or shooting style where smaller is better? Yes.
>>
What's an acceptable price to pay for an olympus xa in CAD?
>>
>>2877227
Which can be easily cleaned with a modicum of effort...
>>
>>2877224

maybe for the price of the selling don't be too low, but I'll sticky to it. ty

>>2877227
mine is oil and dust free, I'd checked with Nikon before buying it

>>2877237

Ok, ty anon
>>
>>2877250
Literally for free. Why the KEK are you bothering with LOLympus for?
>>
So I have ~$2500 to spend and I am in for a new camera.
>tfw tax return

Pentax K-1 FF
or
Fuji X-Pro2 ?

Having had both the K-5 and the X-Pro1 before, it's a hard decision for me to actually choose the right camera for me. Crop vs FF is not an issue for me as I do like both sensor sizes a lot. I am a casual shooter that mainly takes images of people and/or landscapes.

Which one would dou choose, anons? Feel free to express your opinions on the cameras as I really cannot decide which camera I should the dough spend on.
Thank you very much, /p/.
>>
>>2877274
>Pentax K-1 FF
>or
>Fuji X-Pro2

How is this even a question, Pentacks every day m8.
>>
>>2877217
Doesn't really matter since the old cameras are valuable to someone. If you run up on an old Rollei camera for $20 you can sell it for $100 (or a lot more depending on what it is). That goes a long way towards shiny new gear.
>>
>>2877217

>Old stuff mostly sucks

Depends on how old. A lot of stuff from 80s 90s are as good as modern glass (minus the lens coatings) some of it is still being produced for modern DSLRs even.
>>
>>2877116

>most mature and developed mirrorless

Absolutely.

But e-mount is damn close, and x-mount will be there in a year or two. I wouldn't go m43 unless I absolutely needed that slightly smaller size. The sensor performance is just too bad.
>>
>>2877274

I'd say X-pro2 for casual shooting. Sure the autofocus is dicks, the lens selection sparse, and the sensor obly APS-C, but you can adapt almost any lens and the smaller size is a huge plus. You would probably end up getting more use out of it.

Of course at that price I'd be eyeing an a7ii too. Mirrorless with in body image stabalization? Hell yes. Shame it is on the large side though.
>>
>>2877274
For landscapes I'd definitely go with the K-1, for generic people shooting it is also quiet and moderately comforting, especially if you pull out the screen and shoot street by liveview. people will look at you then not knowing what you actually doing and go on their merry ways. Also waist level shooting is boss.
>>
>>2876959
I never said I wasn't, I'm not trying to hide my newfaggotry

Does anyone have some experience with FD to EF mount glassless adapters? No matter how much user reviews and guides I find, they keep contradicting each other about aperture and quality
>>
>>2877337
Some FD lenses can be converted directly to EF mount. The glass adapters are usable with some but others produce horrible image degradation.
Go look at the FD lens threads on mflenses.com

Also mfw the school is displaying an FD 50/1.2. They said it is just junk because nobody is using film anymore. The bastards.
>>
>>2877337

If you want to adapt lenses, get a mirrorless.

Way too much trouble otherwise.
>>
>>2877363
Bullshit. A DSLR is just as good for adapting lenses, I have no trouble using M42 lenses on mine, plenty of great old lenses to choose from and with focus confirmation in the viewfinder, not to mention peaking in liveview.
>>
>>2877353
>>2877363
Thanks. My 100D won't last very long (yes I'm THIS new) so a move to mirrorless in the near future is definitely not out of question

>>2877377
Aren't there a lot of issues though? You have to choose between a glass or glassless adapter right? And each kind has pretty big disadvantages. Unless you've modifying the lenses themselves that is
>>
>>2877377
>M42
That's why it's fine for you.
>>2877386
>Aren't there a lot of issues though? You have to choose between a glass or glassless adapter right? And each kind has pretty big disadvantages. Unless you've modifying the lenses themselves that is
It's down to flange distance. You need enough space between the lens mount you're adapting to and from to be able to focus properly to
infinity without glass.

The reason M42 and M39 glass is usable on EF/A mount etc is because you can screw the adapter ring on and only need to compensate a few millimeters. The reason FD becomes an issue on EF is because the flange distance is 2mm longer on EF bodies. Some lenses may focus to infinity, you may not notice issues but there'll always be issues. That's why mirrorless is so """""great""""" at adapting older lenses. It just simply has more breathing room for an adapter to sit. Very few lenses won't adapt on other bodies.
Glass adapters look terrible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

TLDR. If you can't make it shorter, don't bother.
>>
>>2876804
Noone?
>>
I recently bought a Bronica Zenza ETRS, it has three backs, but only one of them has a darkslide. Would anybody know how to come by two extra ones? eBay hasn't gotten me any results.
>>
>>2876804
>>2877445
They're called architectural plates/mounts or whatever. I have a quick release architectural plate for my Manfrotto and it works perfectly.
>>
>>2877448
I get like one hit for a quick release plate when I search "architectural plate" on amazon.
Still looking. recently asked at a photography store they said they'd order one.
I found one that had screw-threadings on the side pointing inwards, but other than that, most quick-release-plates have only one threading in the middle.
I'm looking for normal holes to nail or screw them in place, like a hinge or any other plate.

I wish the manufacturers would givew their quick-release systems names or numbers so customers could just order them by that.
But instead, every fucking idiot company thinks they have the best system.
Imagine if lightgbulbs were like this, with 500 different mounting systems
>>
>>2877472
How about >Manfrotto 394 RC4 Low Profile Rectangular Rapid Connect
You can screw it on stuff then use the RC4 QR plate for the camera
>>
>>2877473
Doesn't seem to have any holes through which to fix it to a surface
As stated: no threadings, as it allows the plate to turn too much.
>>
>>2877476
Are you sure you are doing DIY? If the holes are not good enough for you, just drill two new holes and tap them so the screw is flush.
Again, are you sure you are capable of basic DIY functions?
>>
Recently found a set of +1 +2 +4 filters online and saw that they are all clear. Is that supposed to be? How do they filter light?
I thought ND filters were like sunglasses
>>
>>2877480
I dont like damaging the parts, especially when I'm working with interlocking precision parts.
I'm no DIY expert but I do stuff from time to time.
I never worked with camera-stuff though
>>
how does one handle the sony a7 camera profiles when there are none. The colors are messed up.

Halp
>>
>>2877484
It's a piece of metal, cast aluminium to be precise. Careful drilling, not stressing it will get you a nice hole then tap it. Also the middle hole with the screw insert is a precision part, it shouldn't allow any movement when put on a head. You should be able to make a counter part that is snug enough. So you even have two choices here. Also it's not very expensive, if you hold it in your hand you should be able to tell how to modify it for your needs.
>>
>>2877485
Simple. Buy a Canon body since you are using adapted Canon lenses. the RAW files should be clean and simple for Lightroom.
>>
>>2877488
The hole in the middle is a screw. Screws turn.
I want it fixed in place by at least 3 points. I dont want to put it on a head of a tripod or anything, I want to fix it solid on a surface.
>>
>>2877492
DRILL THE GODDAMN HOLES! IDIOT!
>>
>>2877485

Latest version of lightroom should have them.
>>
Stupid question: Is there such a thing as, err...

A DSLR without autofocus?
>>
>>2877512
>set lens to manual focus
It's like magic.
>>
>>2877514

Well, yes, but I'm wondering if anyone manufactures one entirely without the feature.
>>
>>2877488
You're and idiot.
The architectural quick release plate I have has a second plate that's on rails and a raised lip. The lip goes against the camera and prevents any fucking rotational movement. I've had my camera on some fucked up angles with heavy as shit gear (RB67) and it's solid af desu senpai. Not sure what you think your autistic bullshit needs are but I doubt it's more than that.
>>
>>2877519
Meant to reply to >>2877472
>>
>>2877512

No need for a mirror then.

Guess a rangefinder would be close?
>>
>>2877515
Well, there's the NASA Nikon F3. That's it.
>>
>TL;DR - should i buy a D3200 for first camera @ $275AUD

Hi, it's my first time posting here. Been lurking for a while now as i've wanted to take up photography for a while but never seem to have the money. But today i seen a Nikon D3200 camera, nikon 18-105mm , tamron 70-300mm Tele macro lense, bag, battery and sd card for $275AUD . All i intend to do is some basic filming and photography while i'm on the road, probably some surfing and coastal shots. Would this be a good investment to start out? I know very little about photography but keen to learn. Thanks for any help!
>>
>>2877529
Stay away from those bundles, most of the included stuff is garbage especially those tele and macro screw-on "filters" they are bullshit.
For the same money you can find used D3300 with kit lens. It is more than enough to start in photography, if you like wildlife then later on you can get a 55-300 or a Tamron 70-300 VC.
>>
>>2877535
Thanks for the reply, much appreciated. Its from a pawn shop so its a kit that someone has put together and had to part with, which made me think the lenses included could have been a 'step up' from the kit lense which is also part of the deal.
I'll look into the d3300 and see if there are any around my area and do some research.

Another question, as i develop some competency over time, (though probably not much more money), what would be a good kit in terms of lenses needed or even another camera suggestion for shooting surfing considering its fast pace and possible distance from beach to wave, with both videos and photo's? Thanks again!
>>
>>2877535
I don't think he's talking about the bullshit bundles that you're thinking of, I'm pretty sure it's just normal used gear. Like the "Tele macro lense" is referring to the Tarmon 70-300mm and not the gimmick filter shit. I could be wrong though.

>>2877529
Give us a link man, it'll be easier for us to know exactly what you're buying
>>
>>2877542
>>2877541
>Give us a link
Never mind, I posted my comment before updating the thread.
>>
>>2877377
>A DSLR is just as good for adapting lenses

It is good, but not as simple as with a mirrorless.

A mirrorless can adapt almost anything. A DSLR can only adapt things with a longer flange distance, which, depending on your camera can be very few.

Plus you get autofocus on mirrorless, even with many manual lenses (via Techart Pro).
>>
File: creed.jpg (158 KB, 1000x666) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
creed.jpg
158 KB, 1000x666
>>2877535

Hi man, thanks for the advice. I'll do some research on the D3300 and see if there are any for sale in around where i am at the moment.

As for the bundle thing, it's in a pawn shop which made me think the lenses that were with it were possibly a 'step up' or at least helped create more versatility as the kit lense is also included in the deal.

Another thing i'd like to ask is with the surf orientated shots and videos. What would be the general idea in regards with kit when you're shooting from the beach, both in terms of camera, lenses and anything else you'd add. Just as i develop any kind of competency as a photographer and maybe some more money i'd want to go in the right direction. Thanks!
>>
>>2877548
>put on the adapter
>put on lens
>focus and shoot
It is just as simple on a DSLR than on a mirrorless.
>>
Is the current Meh deal any good?

https://meh.com/
>>
Fuck, didn't realise the first post went! >>2877541
>>2877549
>>
>>2877542

Its the Tamron af 70-300 f/4-5.6 lense? if thats any help?
>>
File: 6dc.jpg (30 KB, 400x384) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
6dc.jpg
30 KB, 400x384
>>2877551
Not really. As Anon said, you're going to have issues with lenses made for shorter flange distances - that is to say, for EOS bodies, almost any old lens.
You have to choose your poison. You can go for a glassless adapter but you have give up on infinity focusing. If you want to keep it, there are adapters with a glass that will destroy any benefit from using an older, cheaper, higher-quality lens.
Then there's the third option: making the lens shorter. There are conversion kits out there. Personally I'm going to order one - yeah I'm the newfag considering an FD 55mm SSC f/1.2, going to work my ass off so hopefully I can get it while it's available and post some results
>>
>>2877560
If it is the VC version then it's good. If not then it's the old purple monster with loads of fringing and CA.

>>2877565
I deleted a long argument agains your stupidity so here's the short recap. There are many old lenses designed for all kinds of flange distances. Use the one that is good for you. A DSLR is not automatically worse because of the flange distance.
Also moving goal posts is the telltale sign of the Sony shill so go away, preferably kys.
>>
>>2877573
If anything I'd be a Canon shill m8, that's the only gear I own. Got a link instead of the long argument? I'm glad to be wrong if it can save me a few bucks
>>
>>2877573
>A DSLR is not automatically worse because of the flange distance.

No one said it was worse.

Just that it was worse for adapting lenses because you have considerably less options.

m43 and Fuji X are both mirrorless systems that can adapt a fuckton of lenses (though less useful on m43 with that insane crop), so why all the butthurt about Sony?.
>>
>>2877573
I will have to look tomorrow and see whether or not it's the vc lense. If it wasn't would the kit still be worth buying to start or should i wait out for a D3300 ? Also taking into considering the extra cost and my ability or lack thereof..
>>
>>2877552

It's a hell of a deal if you're looking for your first camera.
>>
>>2877584
If you really want to start out tomorrow then can be somewhat decent for an entry level set, but the 18-105mm alone is a big concern. It is a larger zoom range lens and is not really good at wide or tele end. Only somewhat usable in the middle, that is why most kits are offered with the 18-55mm lens. I somehow doubt the previous owner spent the extra effort to get the VC version of the Tamron lens so it probably start to limit you in image quality and you will soon start to post questions along the lines of "Why is my phone taking better pictures than my DSLR?"
The body is good but that is the smaller part of a camera kit. Good lenses play a much bigger role.
A used D3300 with the 18-55 kit lens and the 70-300 VC later is a much better value and much better to start with in my opinion.
>>
>>2877519
>The lip goes against the camera and prevents any fucking rotational movement
...of the camera
I'm talking about rotational movement of the plate. Againstr the base it is fixed on.
You don't get it, do you? The base of plate isn't supposed to move in any way, even if the camera is handled.
I need at least 3 solid fixed points. Because basic construction.
And I'm not talking about any rectangular holes either when the screw or nail can still wriggle about.
>>
>>2877625
You are so stupid you don't even see how retarded you are.
I know exactly what you need and what you have to do with it but I won't spend any effort on you for your piece of shit attitude. Go fuck off and cry somewhere else, maybe some day you will be able to buy your DIY piece. You are either a middle schooler because you sure a failure for any high school level work. Go into any workshop in your area and ask around. They will either throw you out for your attitude or tell you the exact same things we told you again and again.
So fuck off!
>>
>>2877625
The bottom locks in I don't see how it could possibly move. What kind of shot tripod do you have where the plate hangs freely.
I don't think you even understand how a tripod works or how quick release mounts work or have ever even seen a tripod before in your entire life.
>>
What are the downsides to getting a cheap Canon FD to Nikon F adapter and using some old Canon glass I have on my D7100?
>>
File: 20125874.png (561 KB, 400x600) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
20125874.png
561 KB, 400x600
>>2877636
>you're an idiot
>you're retarded
>you're a piece of shit
>you're a failure
>I know everything better than you although I know nothing particular about your project
now wait for it......
>you have a bad attitude
PEAK
IRONY

Do you even realize how you talk to people? Do you have any friends? Have you ever gotten a contract or did any work for yourself? Or do you just hang around the Gearfagthreads on 4chan and tell people how much better you know everything than they?

The requirement for the project is that the baseplate has at least 3 holes through which to fix it to the surface below with screws or nails.
There is no workaround
there is no alternative
there is no screw that will do the job because screws turn by design and I cant have the baseplate turning, also, If I tighten the screw too much just once the plastic might compress and fuck up the accuracy because the space between plate and surface changes. I need a pinpoint accuracy to a specific direction over a distance of at least 150cm, possibly more. If the baseplate turn, that accuracy is shot to hell. Everything else I do with ratcheting and gears.
How are you not getting that?
Oh right. You know shitfuck about DIY projects. You proved that by assuming I want to fix the plate on a head although I already specifically stated otherwise.
>>
Smallest camera with a digital viewfinder?
I m going to travell very light this summer.
Compact or MILC I don't care, I just need the viewfinder, shooting with the screen it's a no-no in a very bright summer day.
>>
>>2877686
>WAAH CAN'T FIND A QR PLATE ADAPTER WITH 3 HOLES
>WAAH THE PLATE ADAPTER HAS A SCREW HOLE
>WAAH I AM TOLD TO DRILL HOLES

I ain't reading that shit. Quit your whining and fuck off, you got your help it's not our fucking problem you are incapable of using it!
Crybaby

Oh also I have an engineering degree, not your basic highschool shit. I know exactly what you need to do. Go figure it out on your own, I ain't helping such a shitty person!
>>
>>2877704
Olympus Pen-F or Sony RX-100 IV
>>
File: 1360783872643.png (16 KB, 400x400) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1360783872643.png
16 KB, 400x400
>>2877679
pls dont make me beg for an answer
>>
>>2877712
The glass in the adapter may introduce bad flares and ghosting or depending on the lens it can completely fuck up the image. But I heard there are many FD lens that work with little or no image degradation.
If the adapter is cheap then go for it, try the lenses out and report back on your findings.
>>
>>2877686
Kill yourself my lad.
>>
just got offered a eos 550d for 230 shekels with lens. good buy? mostly for landscape and such. Very good condition
>>
>>2877749
Sensor and AF are the same as in the new rebels, so it will be good.
Get a good tripod and a filter kit too if you want to get into landscape.
>>
Ring flashes. Are they any good? I almost pulles the trigger on a Roundflash, before I realised you can't exactly fiddle with manual focus while your objective is shoved up the ass end of a black and white donut. So it's either a different kind or forgetting about shooting with my legacy portrait lens.
>>
>>2877763

they're really good for the ring flash look. not so good for anything else.
>>
>>2877686
Welcome to 4chan, where posters are expected to spoonfeed themselves. Go kill yourself, or at least go pollute /diy/ with your needlessly convoluted idea.

>>2877704
RX100 series cameras. They're tiny. That EVF is surprisingly usable.

Failing that, a GX85 is going to be pretty small, but the RX100 really takes the cake.

>>2877679
Because you might as well buy AIS lenses, and enjoy metering.
>>
what do you guys use to clean ur sensors?

tony recommended the Lenspen SensorKlear Loupe Kit to me
>>
Why the fuck is the GR II suddenly back to MSRP everywhere?

Did I miss something?
>>
>>2877803
I use a soft rabbit hair brush I got from the local art shop.
>>
>>2877821
>Did I miss something?

Yeah.

Your chance.
>>
>>2877823
Sick burn, son
>>
>>2877827

I don't think anyone would read into that comment as a burn. It's just a humorous aside.
>>
>>2877823
I mean, I'm not buying one until it goes back to 620.
>>
>>2877831

but what about all of those photos you're missing out on right now? is it worth that $180?
>>
>>2877709
>>2877773
noice thanks
>>
>>2877831

I can't find ANY info about it being at $620. Slick deals doesn't show anything recent for the GRII at all.
>>
>>2877879
That's because it wasn't a slick deal.

It was just that price, if not lower.
>>
Nikkor 18-55 AF-P.

Has anyone tried with older cameras like the D3100?
>>
>>2877921
It doesn't work. Look at the documentation.
>>
File: 1740.jpg (81 KB, 823x1044) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1740.jpg
81 KB, 823x1044
Got this for $340 shipped. Date code says it's from 2010. Good buy?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerRay Neal Caird
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
Aren't DSLRs just shitty computers hooked up to a lens, sensor, and a mirror?

Why doesn't someone build their own "dumb" DSLR without all the cut-rate electronics that can be hooked up to laptop? It could take a shitload of photos in a very short amount of time. You could use a real CPU to process images.

Also, why can't the sensors be upgraded? Why do you have to buy a whole new camera?
>>
>>2877939
That depends entirely on the camera you're using it on and what you're going to do with it.
>>
File: RICOH GXR front.jpg (249 KB, 2959x1728) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
RICOH GXR front.jpg
249 KB, 2959x1728
>>2877968
Wow, you came up with a great idea to revolutionise the industry.

Make sure to link me to your kickstarter or indiegogo page when you're done.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePhase One
Camera ModelH 25
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2466
Image Height1710
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2010:01:20 14:52:12
ISO Speed Rating50
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2959
Image Height1728
>>
>>2877968
>Aren't DSLRs just shitty computers hooked up to a lens, sensor, and a mirror?
You could say the same of any digital device.

>Why doesn't someone build their own "dumb" DSLR without all the cut-rate electronics that can be hooked up to laptop? It could take a shitload of photos in a very short amount of time. You could use a real CPU to process images.
Because of development costs with no benefit. Who's going to make your interface between the sensor and the processor? Who's going to program it? Who would need to shoot tethered like that? At some point, you stop taking photos, and start taking video instead.

>Also, why can't the sensors be upgraded? Why do you have to buy a whole new camera?
So they can sell more cameras. Also alignment issues. Also,
>trusting consumers with the installation of sensitive, precision, expensive hardware
Shiggy diggy
>>
>>2877984
Canon EOS 6D and a 430EX II and mostly stopping it down to f/8 for nightclub photography.
>>
>>2877995
It would be no more difficult than installing a CPU into a computer.
>>
>>2877766
>>2877763

I kinda wanna pick one up got macro shots, but they are really too expensive for such limited usage.
>>
>>2878049
explain geeksquad. people are dumb and will spend over a grand at a box store for a cumputer instead of building one for almost 1/2 the cost in parts
>>
>>2877904

I mean the GR is cool and all, but it still seems like a ton of money for the thing.

Why not get something more capable? I mean do you really need that small size?
>>
>>2877483
Those aren't ND, they're magnifiers for macro. They probably have horrible image quality. Save and get a real macro lens.
>>
>>2876408

Why can't Sony make this camera, but with an e-mount on it instead of that integrated thing.

The a7 series is way to big.

It is like Sony hates money.
>>
>>2877766
So not so much a portable softbox optimized for portraiture as gimmick that will annoy you after 10 shots?
>>
We XT2 now

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t2-first-impressions-review
>>
>>2878072
rx1 is actually hard to hold.
i think it's better to put a full frame sensor in the a6000 body or nex 5t if you want it really compact.
a5100 is pretty crappy for the ergonomics.
>>
>>2878108
>4K UHD video at up to 30 fps for up to 10 min (30 min with booster grip)
>8 fps continuous shooting with AF (11 fps with booster grip)
>have to buy a grip for performance
>>
>>2878120

I have itty bitty fingers and hands like a Japanese person. When I hold the a7, my pinky actually sits on the body.

It is actually nice for me.
>>
you guys ok with 3rd party batteries?
>>
>>2878122
>implying grips haven't always improved the performance of cameras
nigga u high or somethin
>>
>>2878108

Does it still autofocus slow as fuck?
>>
>>2878130
Chris said it has improved AF, I doubt it will be much better in low light situations.
>>
>>2878248

Is the pdaf open to third parties at least?
>>
>>2878268
They did a preview of it, and I doubt they will go into such depth in the review. Ask Fuji if you're so interested.
>>
>>2877396
M39/ltm is not compatible. While it has similar, if not the same threading as m42, the flange distance is only 28-29mm as it is designed for rangefinder cameras. The EF mount is something like 43.5mm or 44mm.
>>
>>2878093
Well Martin Parr still has a career.
>>
Can anyone enlighten me in the strenghts and weaknesses of major camera ecosystems? Currently i have a m43 system but i feel it has not fulfilled its promise as far as overall size is concerned (see Fuji for example), but the choices are a bit confusing for me
>>
>>2878446
What camera exactly? m43 is very much an excellent wildlife system with the right lenses and body.
>>
I never thought I would actually find myself asking a question here but this new D7000 is taking some getting used-to after having shot Canon pro bodies with wheels on the back for the last 7 years.

Two things really.....is there a way to get a zoom on Live View with the shutter half-press button (a la Magic Lantern on a Canon 60d) and holy fuck the 35 1.8g ghosts points of light like a motherfucker, not even joking. God damn
>>
>>2878446

Are you trying to say Fuji is more compact than m43? Because that is just wrong.
>>
>>2878013

>f8
>not f4, 1600 ISO, 1/60th and bounce flash / 1/15th and drag flash
>>
Also one other question is it impossible to avoid diffraction at f/16 or f/8 on APS-C?
>>
>>2878479
Diffraction usually starts at f/16, some shitty lenses have diffraction at f/11.
Diffraction at f/8 is mostly a m43 system thing.
>>
>>2878473
1) No. Welcome to Nikon.
2) Yes. Also CA while wide open.
>>
>>2878473
Should've went with a K-50 mate. Not even joking.
But since you have a usable prosumer camera, have fun with it. You just need to learn to work with the limitations, while at other parts you will have more freedom than on Canon pro bodies.
>>
>>2878480
Diffraction is also affected by the sensor. Since megapickles are a thing diffraction has become worse with more they pack on. Most apsc sensors are diffraction limited by f10 or less.
>>
>>2878489
24 pickles here, diffraction only becomes apparent at f/16 and higher. (K-3)
>>
I want a good camera for whatever I want to use it for. I only want to spend about $200~ and it must be able to take pictures and video. The best quality from a trustworthy brand please.

Thanks in advance.
>>
>>2878550
You gonna need at least twice the budget for that.$200 will only get you the generic shitty point and shoots and even shittier bridge cameras.
Work up the budget more and then get a good entry/intermediate level DSLR or MILC.
>>
>>2878475
Try focusing in a fucking nightclub bub.

I "manually" focus, but usually left it at 4ft or so and just blind fire.
>>
Got a hand me down T3i with a kit lens and a sigma 70-300 f4-f5.6. Where do I start?
>>
>>2878574
Mike Browne on youtube
Relax and have fun
>>
>>2878575
This dude looks like he knows his shit.
>>
>>2878574
Start by ditching that god awful sigma and get the EF-S 55-250 IS
>>
>>2878579
>EF-S 55-250 IS
I hope you mean the STM version only. All the previous ones were pure shit. The STM though, it's an awesome kit lens.
>>
>>2878584
The latest one. I'm not really into Canon lens lineup.
>>
i've got a 300D with just the stock lens on it, looking to do a mild upgrade mostly for a bit more functionality in regards to my computer, would be great to be able to control most of it with my PC. i do mostly shooting in doors of my figures/models, some outside stuff of my cat and occasional person. any recommendations?
>>
>>2878550
You ain't going to get a DSLR for that price.

You'll get something like this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-COOLPIX-L340-20-2-Mp-Camera-28X-Zoom-NEW-SEALED-IN-BOX-/181949768395?_trksid=p2141725.m3641.l6368

Not really a bad thing desu. Not everybody needs a big fancy pro camera. The pictures you get from this will be quite adequate for any "normal" person.
>>
>>2878065
I'm not sure geeksquad would do a CPU upgrade. Might be beyond their typical knowledge.
>>
>>2878588
Yeah that's the latest 55-250mm. It was my favorite lens when I was a cropbabby. Kinda wished there was something as awesome for FF... Lugging around a 70-200mm f/2.8 ain't much fun, especially if you're not getting paid for doing so.
>>
>>2878606
There is the EF 70-300L but I heard it's not as lightweight, more in the weight of the 70-200/2.8
>>
>>2878618
I had high hopes for that 70-300mm DO IS USM , which is compact as hell, but apparently it's so bad optically that I just got all sad about it.
>>
>>2878595
when I was younger I took my shitty pavilion to best buy and they replaced my graphics card and something else so I would assume they do
>>2878575
thank you for the link, I soak up knowledgeable photographers wherever I can
>>
File: exposure.jpg (208 KB, 550x1413) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
exposure.jpg
208 KB, 550x1413
>>2878664
Best thing you can do is just go out there and shoot.

Learn the basics of exposure (pic related) then start working on things like composition etc.
>>
File: DSC_0662.jpg (110 KB, 933x360) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
DSC_0662.jpg
110 KB, 933x360
>>2878666
yep, I've watching vids on the triangle and other tips from lots of sources. I'm at the beginner stage of just taking shots and seeing what it looks like with different settings

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D80
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Camera Raw 8.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern738
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)157 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution999 dpi
Vertical Resolution999 dpi
Image Created2016:07:07 18:24:19
Exposure Time1/250 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias2 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length105.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastHard
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>2878666
supplemental:: that pic is extremely helpful for quick looks
>>
>>2878641
The Tamron 70-300 VC is one of the better lenses, most cheap-ass photographers use it over here. I don't because Tamron is dicks and won't support K-mount.
>>
>>2878571

>Not having a 540ez/550ex/580ex help you focus

Dude even on a 5Dinosaur which is notorious for its shitty AF even in good light I was able to nail AF in nightclubs that were completely dark. Focus assist is awesome and your 6D should be able to do it

>select all images with a salad
>select all images with a commercial truck

kek
>>
>>2878684
I turned off AF assist for the reason that it gets in people's faces... Hmmm since I pretty much blast them in the face with my flashgun anyway... Fuck I'll give it a go this weekend.

You better be right you or I'll call you a faggit.
>>
>>2878669
Quick tip. Most lenses perform optically (sharpness, CA control etc.) when stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8. Don't be a /p/hag and shoot wide open for Bokehwhoring.

Apart from that, just go out and shoot mayne.
>>
>>2878688
The AF assist on the good flashes is in IR. The subject doesn't see a thing.

Obviously keep the AF assist on the body off.
>>
>>2878688
The red-light AF assist on speedlights isn't really that intrusive, especially compared to the annoying-ass lamp on camera bodies, and it can make a pretty surprising difference.
>>
Is the sigma 17-50 f 2.8 a good upgrade over a pre-USM canon kit lens the aperture ring of which doesn't work?

I think it is overall the best value for money. It is sharper than most entry level primes canon has on the market, has the same aperture, and IS.

I saw some videos on the internet that say it's the same as the kit lens, so I'd appreciate advice from someone who has used it.

What other options would you recommend?

I'm honestly upgrading because the kit lens has a shit minimum aperture. I'm going to buy a flash too but you can't always use it. Also, bokeh
>>
>>2878754
I've heard anecdotal evidence that the non-VC Tamron 17-50 2.8 is sharper and it costs less.
>>
have absolutely no lenses for my nikon d200 and a budget of $200. want to explore what different type of photos I want to shoot. which of these tamrons would be a better buy?

Tamron SP A16 17-50 mm F2.8 LD Di-II XR AF
or
Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF) AF Zoom Lens with Macro
>>
>>2878795
I'd get the latter, it's not as good optically but it's much more flexible and you can learn what focal lengths you like best, then when you have the money buy something new that covers the range you like best.
>>
That feel when I just bought this beauty.

It's going to be ramen and walking until payday, but it'll be worth it when it gets here.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePENTAX
Camera ModelPENTAX K-x
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2011:02:03 22:08:48
Exposure Time0.3 sec
F-Numberf/11.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Exposure Bias-1 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width650
Image Height488
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastHard
SaturationNormal
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeDistant View
>>
>>2878797

How much better optically would the 18-200mm be than a 17-55 kit lens? Just want to get an idea in my head
>>
>>2878819
The 17-55 will be sharper at every aperture, but I imagine if you stop the 18-200 down the difference won't be so noticeable. You can probably find some samples if you search the lens on Flickr or Pbase or something.

Another option might be the Nikon 18-55 VR plus the 55-200 VR kit combo. The 18-55 isn't really anything amazing but it's usable and reliable. The 55-200 on the other hand is uncanny for the price, with great sharpness and colors. You can probably find those two for under $200 total and might give you better IQ than the all-in-one.
>>
I just ordered a Ricoh GR II as an upgrade to taking photos with my phone.

What do I need to know? I had a DSLR for a little while 6 years ago or so before selling it, so I know the basics of exposure, etc, but is there anything specifically I need to learn about for this camera or watch out for?
>>
>>2878830
Why'd you go for the GR? For that price you could get a decent DSLR or MICL
>>
>>2878835

Being honest with myself, I'll take way more pictures with something that I can easily carry around in my pocket with me as opposed to something I have to deliberately take out to take photos with, if that makes sense.

Also I like the idea of working with one focal length to relearn composition.
>>
>>2878836
>I'll take way more pictures with something that I can easily carry around in my pocket with me as opposed to something I have to deliberately take out to take photos with, if that makes sense.

It does.

But I found myself so lazy I wouldn't even bother carrying something pocketable.
>>
>>2878829

Wow, the kit lens would be sharper than the 18-200 tamron? In that case I don't see a reason to not go with the two better quality Nikon lens you suggested. Thanks a ton
>>
>>2878861

In general, the fewer focal lengths a lens has to compensate for, the better quality it will be. There are exceptions to this rule, as there are for every rule, but it's an accurate enough rule of thumb.
>>
Does anyone know something about lomography? What is it all about and what are the best cameras?
>>
>>2878865
Alright, so just to make sure I get it right, these are the two lenses to grab?

http://www.adorama.com/nk55200vr2ur.html?gclid=CjwKEAjw-_e7BRDs97mdpJzXwh0SJABSdUH0Tba-NBJ92uRlFRZORAtDvhcZOIQIGVOckmJ5qfIxxRoCf0nw_wcB

https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-55mm-3-5-International-Warranty/dp/B01AI8H58I?ie=UTF8&SubscriptionId=AKIAJHZHL2PTF4QQSIQA&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B01AI8H58I&linkCode=xm2&tag=dpreview-minibbx-prodp-20
>>
Is GIMP or paint.net a suitable replacement for lightroom? I have some snapshits I need to clean up. But want to save money for lenses instead of obtaining legally acquired software.
>>
>>2878883

You get like a free 7 day trial.

Just do that, use, and uninstall.

Lightroom is definately worth the cost, though.
>>
File: 14467856373752676.png (74 KB, 300x256) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
14467856373752676.png
74 KB, 300x256
>>2878883
>paint.net
>>
>>2878881
Those are the ones. I haven't used the newest versions though. I've heard the VR II versions are a step up from the VR I I'm familiar with. Those look like good prices though!
>>
>>2878881
The AF-P 18-55 won't focus on a D200. Too new. You want an AF-S model, either the collapsible VR II model, or the VR I model. The non-VR one is ass. The VR II one is good.
>>
>>2878891
>>2878892

Thanks for the feedback, I think these are the ones I'll grab. I'll probably opt for the $20 upgrade to VR II on the 55-200mm since it's naturally more important at a higher zoom. Also found an AF-S model 18-55. Thanks a ton.

http://www.adorama.com/nk55200vr2ur.html?RRref=productPage

http://www.adorama.com/us%20%20%20%20779429.html
>>
>>2878891
>>2878892
Snap, I didn't even notice that was the AF-P. Thanks for catching that. I really feel like Nikon dropped the ball on compatibility for that and they're really downplaying it on all the official media.

>>2878901
Happy shooting! Looking forward to seeing what you come up with.
>>
I want to get into flash photography with my XT1. The newly announced EF-X500 is a bit out of my price point at the moment and I'm looking at the Nissin i40. Basically my end goal is to have 1 off camera flash minimum, up to 3 off camera flashes at maximum. What equipment do I need to make this happen since there is no air commander 1 unit by Nissin for Fuji? Is there another alternative option? Thanks in advance to whoever replies
>>
>>2878909
Just like Pentax is dropping now with the KAF4. Us K-3 users are cucked out of electromagnetic aperture lenses so far. K-3II, K-S2 and upwards get the firmware update.
>>
>>2879050
If TTL is important, find a TTL compatible flash for the camera.

Otherwise, your answer is and will always be a pile of YN560IVs, a master transmitter, a small pile of AAs, and a set of light stands/brackets/modifiers.
>>
File: 1.png (79 KB, 738x834) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1.png
79 KB, 738x834
Which MTF graph do you prefer between the black set and the purple set?
>>
>>2878883
Also check out Darktable and RAWTherapee. But yes, Lightroom alone is worth the subscription
>>
File: _DSC0885.jpg (651 KB, 667x1000) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
_DSC0885.jpg
651 KB, 667x1000
how shit are the various m42 cameras? I have a few m42 lenses and I'm looking for a film alternative. Are the ~$30 camera bodies on ebay a decent choice?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2015:08:15 18:39:33
Exposure Time1/200 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Brightness4.5 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length35.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
Hello, my father bought me a Nikon F-55 around twelve years ago as a beginned reflex camera. It was equiped with a Nikon AF Nikkor 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6G. Since I was interested in animal macrophotography but still a kid, he also bought me a +3 close-up filter.
It's been a long time and I've been missing macro-photography more and more along the years so I would like to buy a new digital reflex camera but I am a bit lost. My idea was buying a new camera with a macro lens and using the old Nikon lens for casual photography (vacation, birthdays...). What kind of specs should I look for ? Can I use my old Nikon lens on a modern reflex camera ?
>>
Is there a good guide to the GR snap focus feature?

I don't know anything about zone focusing and I think I'd like to learn.
>>
is the praktica mtl3 a decent start if you have a couple m42 lenses? these DDR cameras are pretty cheap on ebay
>>
File: R0031248_320s.jpg (20 KB, 320x240) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
R0031248_320s.jpg
20 KB, 320x240
>>2879178
When in manual focus mode, the camera shows you your DoF for your given aperture and focusing distance on the scale on the left. Play around with that to find a combination you like and then set the snap focus distance to match that. I like setting it just a little bit short of hyperfocal range wide open (if I remember right, mine is set to 2.5m or 3m), that way if I snap-focus with the lens wide open I will probably have everything mostly in focus, and if I snap-focus at f/4 or f/5.6 or so then pretty much everything will be in focus.

Snap focus mode is pretty simple. In the settings, you pick a focus distance to be your snap-focus point. Then, when you're using the camera normally in autofocus mode it'll just focus like normal and ignore your snap setting UNLESS you mash down on the shutter button really fast without giving the camera time to autofocus correctly. When that happens, it skips the autofocusing process and immediately goes to your chosen snap-focus distance and takes a photo. It happens pretty much instantly, so it lets you fire off a photo at the exact instant that you want it instead of having to wait for the camera to finish focusing.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>2879168
Pentax Spotmatic spii will do ya pretty good
>>
>>2879178
1 person = 5 feet,
3 person = 10 feet,
Mountain Range is infinity

That's how zone focus works.
If you're missing a lot of shots, set it to f8
>>
>>2879193
>>2879196

So basically, walk down the street and mess around with different distances from people and different settings for distance in order to find out what works for getting stuff in focus?
>>
>>2879199
Yes, but ultimately the point is that you don't have to mess around at all because you will be able to immediately estimate the right distance and the camera will snap right to that distance when you want it.

Zone focusing with manual focus lenses works pretty much the same way, you just have to know where to turn the focus ring to match what you want.
>>
>>2879200
Well, you're basically setting it to your preferred distance to shoot people at, and then taking the picture when they're in that distance, right?

So those are things you have to learn by doing, I guess.
>>
>>2878288
I thought I'd seen a few on DSLR's. Oh well. Not like I use them, I'm not a pleb and I gave a link to a list of flange distances.

LITERALLY NOT MY PROBLEM.
>>
>>2878666
This chart is super confusing.

Then I realised that the aperture explanation is reverse for some got awful reason. Why on earth would you put F16 on the edge of the lens? All style no substance
>>
what's the best vintage vintage 85 and 28mm lenses I can get for around 100 each on ebay?
>>
considering selling my 600d and buying something more compact like LX100
is it a mistake?
>>
>>2879312
You're a mistake, Anon. But if it means you carry a camera more often, go for it. Personally, i'd spend a little more for a gx85, or spend less for a EM10II. Or see what the LX100 successor brings.
>>
>>2879307
100 what
>>
>>2879340
usd
>>
>>2879228
Nigga u jus dum
>>
What Gitzo Tripod would pair best with my X-Pro 2?
>>
File: nikon d200.jpg (7 KB, 242x208) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
nikon d200.jpg
7 KB, 242x208
I'm going to Colorado to climb my first mountain in a month with my DSLR. I want to get some cool shots, but I do not own a tripod. I want to buy one, and everyone seems to agree that you should not skimp on a tripod. However my camera is only a Nikon d200 and I have not invested very much into photography yet, so I don't want to break the bank on an accessory. I don't do much landscape normally either. If anyone could suggest a few cheap (like under $75, I don't want to spend more on the tripod than my body cost) I would really appreciate it.
>>
>>2879520
You crazy? d200 is a beast of a camera.
>>
>>2879520
you should be able to just google used cameras in your area a most likely find a used camera shop. They sell used and older pods for under $100 doodoos
>>
>>2879522
I tried to get the best body I could for $100 :)

>>2879523
I know but the internet always has better stuff /s

But seriously, any recommended models to look for used?
>>
File: pentax12[1].jpg (26 KB, 523x418) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
pentax12[1].jpg
26 KB, 523x418
Just got a Pentax Program Plus with a 50mm prime, and an MD ROKKOR-X 50mm 1.4 at Goodwill for $20. Some quick searches show people saying it's a nice camera to work with. Is it worth getting some batteries and a few rolls of film to mess with?
Thread replies: 255
Thread images: 37

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at imagescucc@gmail.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.